To see that the potential for "voting discrimination" still exists, you just have to peruse the comments section of a previous "Democracy in America" blog post "Gay marriage - North Carolina begs the question too".

I guess it is a part of the weakness of human nature to try to stop someone voting in opposition to you.

Look, in Sweden the voting system works with no voter registration -- when you are registered as a resident, you are registered as a voter -- and you get a couple of notifications in the mail (snail) when it is time to vote --with simple info on 'this is how you do it'. When you show up at (one of several) possible voting stations, of which some are conveniently open in the weeks before election day (for early voting), you do have to show your photo ID. But since you need that photo ID for many other things, just about everybody has one (they are also easy and cheap to obtain). The upshot is voter turnout in Sweden has varied between 85 and 95% -- that is of the entire voting age population. While in the States a good turnout is 50% of the registered voters who are some 50% of the entire voting age population.

This clearly identifies the need for comprehensive voting reform in the US, which includes enabling more (not less) people to vote. When the Republicans (especially in the South) want to raise barriers to voting, they are tactically excluding people they don't want to vote. Which reminds of the tactics used in the South from Reformation until the 70's to prevent African-Americans from voting.

"I hear a preacher announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of his church. Do I not know beforehand that not possibly can he say a new spontaneous word? Do I not know that with all this ostentation of examining the grounds of the institution he will do no such thing?" (Emerson)

"For good cause" says all I need to know of your opinion of the matter, meaning that all your ostentation of examining the grounds of the VRA your conclusion was pretty much foreordained. Seriously, you respect something called something as cloying as "The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and Cesar E. Chavez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006"? Barf, barf, barf. I think that's the only possible response to yet another decade of having the same bland moral gruel shoved down our throats.

So you would prefer to have spicy immoral slime, then? Do you think we should just forget about ensuring the Constitutional rights of brown people and trust that everything will be fine despite centuries of evidence that is simply not how the world works?

I fear I will always be a statist, because libertarians and anarchists are living in a fantasy world where people don't act like people.

To this I would reply, "[T]ruth is handsomer than the affectation of love. Your goodness must have some edge to it-- else it is none. The doctrine of hatred must be preached as the counteraction of the doctrine of love when that pules and whines." (Emerson)

"libertarians and anarchists are living in a fantasy world where people don't act like people"

That comprehensively flabbergasts me. A member of the _Left_ is saying that, a group which appears to me to believe that government can actually make up for the real-life effects of what's in people's heads, and that a steady diet of pity from the Left won't infantilize and ruin the character of those who are pitied? Hard-edged realists, all of you. I don't know about anarchists, but we libertarians live in a world where people always act like people. We simply think they should usually suffer the consequences, 'cause nothing else is going to get them to change their ways. And if they don't, well, that's part of their liberty.

"[The left], a group which appears to me to believe that government can actually make up for the real-life effects of what's in people's heads, and that a steady diet of pity from the Left won't infantilize and ruin the character of those who are pitied?"

Two questions: what are you smoking? Could you pass me some? I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. The left is generally concerned with improving the lot in life of those with the least... regardless of what's in anybody's head. You're right though, we don't worry about ruining people's character; we leave that tripe to the "hard-edged realists" like yourself.

"I don't know about anarchistse"

They're the leftist equivalent to libertarians. They believe that in the absence of government, we'll all be able to hold hands and sing kumbaya. The main difference is that they believe all social ills will simply vanish of their own accord, as opposed to believing that it makes sense to gun down anyone who crosses them.

"[W]e libertarians live in a world where people always act like people. We simply think they should usually suffer the consequences, 'cause nothing else is going to get them to change their ways."

Yes, without government getting in the way we'd all get along and nobody would ever do anything wrong... and if they did, we could just defend ourselves with our mountains of automatic weapons. No way in heck would good, moral, God-fearing Murricans fall prey to despots or warlords like every other country that has a national government too weak and impotent to do much of anything. And we all know that profit-driven businesses are honest and honorable all the time, even without government enforcing laws to do awful, restrictive things to them. It's definitely true that the free market can and will solve every problem, even those which every sane economist, political theorist, philosopher, theologian or ordinary person has pointed to as a troubling consequence of under-governance (see: tragedy of the commons).

"And if they don't, well, that's part of their liberty."

I don't care for the liberty to be crushed by the strongest man any more than I care for the liberty to be crushed by a government... but democracy offers at least some slim chance of influencing the crusher to the crushed, and of making it the slightest bit less likely to crush anyone at all.

Libertarians aren't opposed to government preventing people from physically harming others, so I don't know what all that talk was about. Automatic weapons are already illegal and have been since 1934, though don't feel bad-- I've never yet encountered a liberal who knew that particular fact, or in fact many facts about guns. (Ease up on the "Murricans" blithering, though-- I'm sure you don't want to be accusable of hypocrisy due to stereotyping, yourself.)

I do hope some day liberals will realize that they're acting like helicopter parents to the poor, which is poisoning the lives of the very people they're trying to help, and that no action of theirs will change anything until what's in poor people's heads changes too.

I voted for Obama last time 'round, but this time I'm afraid he listens too much to people who think the way you do instead of to DNC types.

"Libertarians aren't opposed to government preventing people from physically harming others, so I don't know what all that talk was about."

No, just against government levying enough taxes to exist in any meaningful sense.

"Automatic weapons are already illegal and have been since 1934, though don't feel bad-- I've never yet encountered a liberal who knew that particular fact, or in fact many facts about guns."

Actually, they are not, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Automatic weapons ARE heavily regulated, taxed, banned from import and rather difficult to manufacture for civilian use... but they are not illegal. I know people who own and fire them, legally, right here in the People's republic of Taxachusetts. Look it up if you don't believe me. Oddly enough, most conservatives I've spoken to have no clue what the actual gun laws are in the US, despite the fact they "know" them to be odious and evil.

"(Ease up on the "Murricans" blithering, though-- I'm sure you don't want to be accusable of hypocrisy due to stereotyping, yourself.)"

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings?

"I do hope some day liberals will realize that they're acting like helicopter parents to the poor, which is poisoning the lives of the very people they're trying to help, and that no action of theirs will change anything until what's in poor people's heads changes too."

So the poor would be better off if we stopped providing education or the meager social benefits currently on offer and let them just die instead? I don't argue that the current welfare state is perfect, or even good, but the libertarian "alternative" is little more than a thin sheen of pablum on children starving in the streets.

"I voted for Obama last time 'round, but this time I'm afraid he listens too much to people who think the way you do instead of to DNC types."

The classic DNC position is one of making pragmatic decisions to alleviate problems we cannot truly resolve. I strongly believe in doing just that. The current crop of Democrats are too cowardly to do even this, or too starry-eyed to accept that problems without a resolution even exist. That does not make the ideas put forth by the Tea Partiers or the captive GOP any better, more responsible or even sane.

Well, you're right, machine guns can be bought-- but you have to have a Class III Federal license (think fingerprinting and people crawling up your ass with a microscope) and a _lot_ of money. An ordinary WWII machine gun will run you as much as or more than a used Rolls-Royce. So, whatever. Not strictly illegal, no, but close enough, especially for anyone desperate enough to use 'em. So it's a red herring.

"No, just against government levying enough taxes to exist in any meaningful sense."

So long as you get to determine what "in any meaningful sense" means.

"I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings?"

Not a bit. I live in Philadelphia, know and like many diverse kinds of people, and don't talk about "Murricans." I was simply pointing out that you stereotype as much as anyone, and might want to avoid that if you want to try to take the moral high ground.

"So the poor would be better off if we stopped providing education or the meager social benefits currently on offer and let them just die instead?"

The poor would be better off if Democratic politicians were interested in actually giving them real independence by financial education. But what enough Democratic politicians want is to keep their constituent groups dependent on what those politicos can supply. Basically, a fish-producing company will never teach its customers how to fish. If the Dems wanted to provide this level of support while teaching people how not to need it, I'd support that, because it would reduce and theoretically eventually end the need for itself. But somehow that never seems to happen. Nor will it, because politicians of any stripe know how to rationalize any particular situation they want. It's the blank-check nature of the promises implied by the "Great Society" programs that fuels their moral hazard. There has to be some kind of minimal G.P.A. required for this particular type of financial aid.

"I was simply pointing out that you stereotype as much as anyone, and might want to avoid that if you want to try to take the moral high ground."

I'll look into it.

"The poor would be better off if Democratic politicians were interested in actually giving them real independence by financial education. Basically, a fish-producing company will never teach its customers how to fish."

Certainly true. That still doesn't make them better off if we follow the Republican plan of "let 'em starve", a plan which conveniently does very little to educate anyone about anything.

"If the Dems wanted to provide this level of support while teaching people how not to need it, I'd support that, because it would reduce and theoretically eventually end the need for itself."

It would be massively more expensive than what we have now. Most Libertarians already feel the price tag on public education is too high... just imagine if you needed to hire economists and financial planners away from the private sector in order to teach the poor how to manage money. How big a check are you willing to write just for the program itself?

"But somehow that never seems to happen. Nor will it, because politicians of any stripe know how to rationalize any particular situation they want."

Even if the Democrats did want to change the program to include more education and genuine effort to end poverty rather than putting band-aids on it... they couldn't. Republicans don't like spending money on the poor. they believe it coddles them, ruins their character, and prevents them from ever learning how to help themselves. Stripes suck, politicians suck, and pretty much anyone willing to affix a [D] or [R] to their name sucks.

"It would be massively more expensive than what we have now. Most Libertarians already feel the price tag on public education is too high"

In response, I'll ask this question: Is buying a quality pair of boots which will last you ten times as long as cheap ones more expensive just because they cost three times as much as the cheap ones? The main Republican objection to huge and ever-increasing amounts spent on education is that we don't get much for it. Education which increases independence (which helps them learn how to help themselves) and decreases the need for more spending in the future, on the other hand, we'd be closer to getting our money's worth out of. It would be more expensive only in the sense of perhaps spending more money in the short term, but less expensive in light of what we get. And maybe not all that much more spending, if politicians stand up to the teachers' unions like Cory Booker did.

And perhaps some sort of financial Peace Corps might be possible. This kind of thing: http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/karen_heller/20120411_Karen_Hell.... I reiterate: government cannot spend enough to make up for what's in people's heads. We simply need to change what's in their heads. Even a little bit of passive income, like from stocks or bonds, would make a big difference in many people's lives.

"The main Republican objection to huge and ever-increasing amounts spent on education is that we don't get much for it."

Which they go about solving by demanding that we spend less, but offering no real ideas about how to actually improve. Helpful.

"Education which increases independence (which helps them learn how to help themselves) and decreases the need for more spending in the future, on the other hand, we'd be closer to getting our money's worth out of."

Our education system already does that, albeit not very well. What, specifically, should change about it? Do you think high schools should be churning out investment bankers? I hear a lot of criticism of public education from the right... I have yet to hear an actual plan to fix it, just a lot of plans to kill it and assume that everyone could then afford private school.

"It would be more expensive only in the sense of perhaps spending more money in the short term, but less expensive in light of what we get."

So more expensive. If a better education program were proposed tomorrow, but it would cost 50% more money than what we have now... are your ready to write that tax check? Speaking of which, if that is really what you want, I suggest you lobby your local and state governments: they make all of the big decisions on education.

"And maybe not all that much more spending, if politicians stand up to the teachers' unions like Cory Booker did."

Ah yes, the notorious teachers' unions... the ones that make education too expensive by demanding $35k salaries for people with master's degrees. For the amount of education required to be a teacher, they could make a great deal more money in the private sector. If you'd like to start paying them private sector money, then the unions would have little traction. That would also be a negative cost savings.

"And perhaps some sort of financial Peace Corps might be possible. This kind of thing: [link]"

That's awesome, a great program, I'd love to see more of them. That one seems to run on volunteer work from highly qualified people, though, and that makes it difficult to scale. It's also been going for less than 18 months... if some of the principles were to leave the program, would it survive? Most importantly, how is the government supposed to recreate this phenomenon? Where would they get the resources (I don't think Japan would keep pitching in)? I'm not saying this is a bad idea - quite the contrary - but I'm not sure this is something that can be recreated by government.

"I reiterate: government cannot spend enough to make up for what's in people's heads. We simply need to change what's in their heads. Even a little bit of passive income, like from stocks or bonds, would make a big difference in many people's lives."

That "simply" is a bit problematic... very easy to say, very hard to do. Also very expensive. We're also not 100% sure how it's done, and there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that it takes many different approaches.

Teachers' unions in general ruin educational reform not by demanding such high salaries but by demanding fat pensions and health insurance and so on regardless of how well the municipality is doing (trust me on this one-- we've seen it in Philadelphia for ages), and by making it extraordinarily difficult to fire bad teachers. Unions genuinely are guilty of a lot, which is why the ones in Wisconsin are having such a hard time recalling Walker and those six legislators that they tried. I genuinely don't see Democratic special interest groups like unions as being one jot better than Republican ones, their claimed nobility of purpose notwithstanding.

I'd be ready to write that tax check if it meant lower taxes later on.

"Our education system already does that, albeit not very well. What, specifically, should change about it? Do you think high schools should be churning out investment bankers?"

Not investment bankers, no, but there's an anti-investment bias in general, because the cheapest, most thoughtless form of morality says money is only okay if you worked for it. High schools should be producing investors-- people who get some of their income from their job and some from their investments.

I guess the author did not read about the new black panthers back when Obama was elected, standing at the entrances to polling places with cudgels in hand and threats to vote Obama or else. So who is impeding who's voting rights?

The politicians said yes because they like their insane electoral maps that keeps the republicans and democrats in power. The want to be able to create class warfare, set one race against another and this is best achieved with gerrymandering.

The only law we need is one that says divide the state by population in close geographic proximity. This nonsense where a California representative is representing this long thin line of geography that cuts across a tiny piece of LA, through mountains and 400 miles north to tap other cities is ridiculous.

Just draw boxes by population the people in any box are in the same place, with the same problems, the same community interests and are therefore represented by someone who really can represent them.

If the electoral map is not simple to define and understand, it should be assumed the politicians are simply screwing around so they can continue their unethical or criminal behavior and leave the people unable to get in the way.

But if you live here, you know that the Mojave and the Owens Valley are gigantic areas with not many people. They had to be attached to some urban area to get the half million voters a congressional district requires so the mapmakers just followed the 14. It's not suspicious. In the 80s, when I lived in Inyo County, we were in the same area code as San Diego.

I have heard about them... but not from anyone who claims to have been genuinely intimidated into voting a particular way by them. I've also seen video of them, video where they are standing outside obeying the law, watching people walk past, not interacting -let alone impeding- anyone who does not directly address them. The cameraman was nearly hysterical about how intimidated he was (though oddly enough he was not so intimidated that he tried to avoid confrontation), and kept insisting they were up to no good, but everyone else just seemed to ignore them.

Do you have any evidence of Black Panthers *actually* doing that, or just evidence that they stood outside of polling places?

The 3 new black panthers were arrested for it and it went as far as Eric Holder when he decided to not pursue it for whatever racist reason that was.

You mean the multiple videos of them standing outside polling places in 2008 and again in 2010, cudgels in hand was not enough evidence for you? Oh, i'm sorry self appointed security guards. You have to really have your head in the sand to see the actions of those men and walk away think yeah thats perfectly ok to have around a polling place. It is illegal for a politician or a supporter to be within 100 ft of a polling place promoting their candidate but apparently if you are the new black panther party, you can gang up, grab some weapons and stand right outside the door. No I guess that is not voter intimidation and racism.

Well I am not saying the job is easy. After all, Congress could in fact create more districts. Not that I am all for the 8000 or so representatives that could be there under the rules but perhaps the 435 is a bit low. And while this is a legitimate reason to work at some creative ways to represent people, it still leaves a wide open door for all kinds of dishonest and we are talking about relying on the most untrustworthy group of people(politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers and anyone living off them) to lay out these districts correctly.

Again, I have seen NO reports of New Black Panthers ACTUALLY threatening anyone or doing much at all except for STANDING THERE. I have read multiple reports that people "felt threatened" by young black men standing near a polling place, but not a single account of them harassing or preventing anyone from entering, voting or leaving.

Again, every video I've seen clearly shows people going about their business unmolested, regardless of skin color. If they were trying to keep that from happening, they were outstandingly ineffective.

Right, you go with that ridiculous comment. It is apparently common practice for thugs to stand around the entrances to buildings carrying weapons and this is not somehow a threat or intimidation. Which places in America is this common practice? The point of being intimidated is to be too scared to say anything, so you don't really know who turned around and left without voting because those thugs were there. And by your ridiculous comment, it means I can walk around waving a weapon but as long as I am not specifically saying anything, then I am not at all intimidating. So tell me, which weapons can I bring to a polling place? Or is it only acceptable when you are a new black panther? Even if they were not successful and most people ignored them, they still attempted it. An armed criminal is let go because he wasn't successful?
Bottom line is in a free country, any citizen has the right to walk into a polling place and NOT have to walk around armed thugs to get in the door just like our not having to wade through political protestors, campaign sign wielders or even the police. You do not get to impede my right to not deal with you at a polling place, just because you are of african blood and call yourself a new black panther security guard and assign your self to "protect" something.

Right, you go with that ridiculous comment. It is apparently common practice for thugs to stand around the entrances to buildings carrying weapons and this is not somehow a threat or intimidation. Which places in America is this common practice? The point of being intimidated is to be too scared to say anything, so you don't really know who turned around and left without voting because those thugs were there. And by your ridiculous comment, it means I can walk around waving a weapon but as long as I am not specifically saying anything, then I am not at all intimidating. So tell me, which weapons can I bring to a polling place? Or is it only acceptable when you are a new black panther? Even if they were not successful and most people ignored them, they still attempted it. An armed criminal is let go because he wasn't successful?
Bottom line is in a free country, any citizen has the right to walk into a polling place and NOT have to walk around armed thugs to get in the door just like our not having to wade through political protestors, campaign sign wielders or even the police. You do not get to impede my right to not deal with you at a polling place, just because you are of african blood and call yourself a new black panther security guard and assign your self to "protect" something.

"It is apparently common practice for thugs to stand around the entrances to buildings carrying weapons and this is not somehow a threat or intimidation. Which places in America is this common practice? "

Apparently you've only ever spent time outside of cities, or in good neighborhoods... it isn't exactly uncommon.

"The point of being intimidated is to be too scared to say anything, so you don't really know who turned around and left without voting because those thugs were there"

So all of the people in the videos WALKING RIGHT PAST THEM aren't evidence that there wasn't much to be afraid of? Again, if they were intimidating people as you say, shouldn't those people have looked even the slightest bit intimidated?

"And by your ridiculous comment, it means I can walk around waving a weapon but as long as I am not specifically saying anything, then I am not at all intimidating."

I see people carrying weapons much scarier than short batons pretty regularly. Pistols, for example. I do not find this terribly intimidating, nor have I observed that anyone else does. It does seem to freak people out when brown people carry them, but surely you are above such pettiness?

"So tell me, which weapons can I bring to a polling place? Or is it only acceptable when you are a new black panther?"

If you want to stand silently outside of a polling place holding a stick, go right ahead.

"Even if they were not successful and most people ignored them, they still attempted it. An armed criminal is let go because he wasn't successful?"

To be armed criminals they would have to break laws. Standing outside of a polling place is not illegal. Being black is not illegal. Carrying a stick is not illegal. It remains not illegal even when you do all of those things at once. I do not believe in manufacturing crimes for the purpose of arresting people based solely on the emotions of others.

"Bottom line is in a free country, any citizen has the right to walk into a polling place and NOT have to walk around armed thugs to get in the door just like our not having to wade through political protestors, campaign sign wielders or even the police."

Bottom line, it is a free country, and every citizen has none of those rights. Police are frequently present at polling places, campaigners are always present, and your opinion of what constitutes an "armed thug" has no bearing on whether or not you have to walk around other citizens with just as much right to be there.

"You do not get to impede my right to not deal with you at a polling place, just because you are of african blood and call yourself a new black panther security guard and assign your self to "protect" something."

I'm none of those things, and unless your right to vote was impeded, which I seriously doubt, you probably want to stop pretending this is personal. In any event, even if we assume the worst-case-panic predictions of the people who worry about the New Black Panthers... the number of polling places they have interfered with is a rounding error; an inexcusable rounding error, but still a rounding error. By comparison, fully documented cases of voter intimidation and fraud against African Americans in those elections were a far more widespread and numerous event. Pardon me if am less concerned with the feelings of a handful of easily frightened white people than I am with the continuation of centuries of racial discrimination.

oooh the illegals. let me hide under my bed.
Social Security Number, Thatseasy.
The 200 trillion illegals don't have a valid SSN.
Every citizen of voting age has one.
Every legal immigrant/resident has one also, but the SSA segregates citizens and non-citizens pretty clearly.

Look, in Sweden the voting system works with no voter registration -- when you are registered as a resident your are registered as a voter -- and you get a couple of notifications in the mail (snail) when it is time to vote -- 'this is how you do it'. When you show up at (one of several) possible voting areas, of which some are conveniently open in the weeks before the election day, you do have to show your photo ID. But since you need that photo ID for many other things, just about everybody has one 8they are also easy and cheap to obtain). The upshot is voter turnout in Sweden has varied between 85 and 95% -- that is of the entire voting age population. While in the States a good turnout is 50% of the register voters who represent some 50% of the entire voting age population.

This clearly identifies the need for comprehensive voting reform in the US, which includes bringing more people into vote. When the Republicans (especially in the South) want to raise barriers to voting, they are tactically excluding people they don't want to vote. Which reminds of the tactics used in the South from Reformation until the 70's to prevent African-Americans from voting.

Australia has a simple solution
Voting is compulsary
You are free to break te law I believe $50 fine or spoil your paper
Turnout is always very highand increases an inclusive society
Except of course for folks like me me who are non resident.
Keep the judiciary and lawyers out of the trough.I think all qualified lawyers should work alternate years as volunteers taking the first case to be assined like Uk barristers.It'll never happen reflecting their disdain for unbilled justice.
A Democracy behove to these shystes who defend the bankstes and insurance leeches is why Chinese model will win without the costly charade of mock Democracy
Zai jian Mei gou ren

Have you dealt with the Chinese state as I have?
Have you lived there I have?
Have you worked there I have?
Would you prefer to retire in rural China or rural Europe?
THE PRC has improved the lives of ordinary people more than Europe where I was discriminaated against yet expected to finance NATO one of the least democratic organisations if we discount th EU mob.
Yes China has a way for its people where order ,security and work are respected unlike Greece Ireland.Sure people point to censorship but Tiananmen,Kent State ,Bloody Sunday,Sharpeville ststes have to make examples if they are to ensure social chesion.
The so called democracies outsource the suffering to the foreign wars their colonial Aid as Imperialism waste dumping.high tar brands Trafigura ad infinitu.Darwinianism is inexorable and the franchise of unionised workers in colonial victors will be seen as blip in history.
Democracy failed China,left Soviets to crush facism and enslaved half the world,it has poor track record
To be fair I was well treated in Portugal a notable level of solidarity and in Denmark.

What has changed since 2006 is a black man became President and the Democrats took the majority in the Senate. Republicans are desperate to suppress Democratic voter turnout. I don't think it is racism - though perhaps that is a motive in Alabama, I don't know - but I think it is mostly cynical electoral math. That does not make it any less disgusting to watch though.

Some of the more egregious and underhanded tactics used in modern times (within the last 20 years) by paid phone callers calling would-be voters, and posted on flyers in minority black/hispanic neighborhoods, the residents of whom are often presumed to lean towards Democrat Party votes:

- Mentioning voting requirements that do not exist, such as "helpfully reminding" them to bring a Social Security card, drivers' license, tax returns, or even birth certificates; and informing them that they will be turned away otherwise.

- Claiming that there is a separate Election Day for voters who wish to vote for Democrat Party candidates.

- Calling and telling voters that their polling place has been changed to another site, usually a far distance from the voter's residence.

- Advising would-be voters that "if they have ever been arrested" they are not allowed to vote.

- Mailing out cards and flyers claiming that "due to a shortage of polling places in your area" voting for your street will be done at a later date via mail balloting.

None of these is 'discrimination' in and of itself; but such intimidation and fraud is just as harmful...

Discrimination is the first wrong, what is the second? Are you implying the federal law is wrong? Ooops, how do you stop a stupid racist from being racist and then 'discriminating on the basis of race? They will not simply stop being a racist and acting that way, will they.

The Roberts statement shows a foolish non-understanding of the human nature of racist behaviour. Making that behaviour illegal is not wrong...

Ummm...the second wrong is employing racism to try to mitigate racism.
"Ooops, how do you stop a stupid racist from being racist and then 'discriminating on the basis of race? They will not simply stop being a racist and acting that way, will they"
Simply put, you don't. Racists will simply be racists. Accept it and move on. Instead of worrying about a tiny minority of folks, how about we focus on the vast majority that believe that everyone should receive a fair shake? Making laws that benefit one group over another simply to account for a tiny minority of racists poison the entirety of race relations.
Example: You can see it already each time someone points out that a black person got their job simply because they are black. And no, pointing this out is not itself racist if indeed it is true. So now instead of a black person being respected for their ability to do their job, they are disrespected for what could be a very valid reason.
What you are basically saying is that racism is ok as long as it is the "right" racism.
Ok then...if you say so...But you should understand that if you really want to stomp out racism, then engaging in racism - even the "right" form - is fundamentally wrong.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and there is no "right" form of racism.

Ahh, voting rights is 'racism' -- why didn't I think of that? You're a poor white boy who thinks that any law to combat the historcal racism practiced in the US is in fact 'racist'. Well, I'm old enough to have heard that arguement from the white supremicists who first made that argument shortly after the law was first implemented. And now you're making it again 40 years later! Nothing new under the sun here, and you just outed yourself -- my poor suffering right-wing nutcake.
'making laws that benefit one group over another simply to account for a tiny minority of racists poison the entirety of race relations.' -- Trouble is the real racists and white supremicists in the US are not a 'tiny minority' as they have repeatedly hijacked the mechanisms of state to oppress the real minority.

You repeat several myths about the human condition and the history of human racism and the history of racist activity, laws and oppression that has, in fact, existed in our great nation. Take a deep look into yourself, find your true humaness and understand the foolishness of your argument.
You're not a conservative as long as you hate other human beings...your someting else...

Hahaha...that's the best you can do: debate an issue by yelling "YOU'RE A RACIST [BY NOT AGREEING WITH ME]."
"You're a poor white boy who thinks that any law to combat the historcal racism practiced in the US is in fact 'racist'. "
Clue: historical rasism is meaningless. The ONLY thing that is important is how things are working now and into the future. Why? Because NOTHING can make up for past wrongs. We can only move forward.
Oh you can name-call all you want (no, I'm not a "white supremacist" or "poor white boy" or even a "right-wing nutcake [sic]" or a "conservative").
Try to expand you mind and your intellect. I know it's hard...you have been brainwashed...but realize that - as I have already said - two wrongs NEVER make a right.

Nothing can make up for past wrongs? Who decides this? You? We live in a democracy, however flawed and imperfect, it is still that. These laws were passed with the comprehension of its citizens. You wanna change 'em, go ahead and espouse 'Instead of worrying about a tiny minority of folks, how about we focus on the vast majority that believe that everyone should receive a fair shake?'

I'm sure you'll have enough takers to change the law, because 'tiny minority of folks' is sure to be taken well.

Didn't yell, and you are simply denying reality. When you use the same arguments as the racists and white supremicists of the past, you are aligning yourself with their ideology, whether you want to believe it or not. you can defend yourself by calling the other guy names, but the reality is still there ''historical racism' is full of meaning and you deny the reality of it with your statement. Which is like the slave owner saying his slaves have it better off with him than in the wild. Or in modern terms, when the white 'christian family' organisation claims in 2012 that African-American families had a better chance of living together under slavery than they do now.
Historical racism teaches us about our current values as human beings. Refuse to learn about yourself through learning about human history and you can come to espouse nutcake ideas that racism doesn't exist nowadays. Why nutcake? -- that's a description of someone who denies reality and denies their own failings. Granted, it is a pointed description, but you need to do some pointed soul-searching...

Ok, well we can see this discussion is going no where. You are obviously an ideologue on par with any fire and brimstone preacher. Either we agree with you - and your approach to race relations - or we are racists. That's like saying, "believe in my God or you are going to hell." What folks like you don't realize is the 1960's were a long time ago. Time to move on. Understanding history is one thing....living in it is utter stupidity because there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. "historical racism" is of no consequence...all that happens from here on out is important.
At this point, we have each said our piece, and arguing with you is like arguing with a priest. I see nothing else worth discussing.

Uh...no...simple physics: time, as we know it, always moves forward. So without a time machine, I can't go back and change a bloody thing so affirmative action policies and the racism they espouse are therefore fundamentally flawed..Can you go back in time? If so, call Dr. Hawking and the Nobel committee!

So my point is continuing to focus on "historical racism" is completely and utterly pointless since there is nothing we can do about it....it's locked in history. Since I wasn't alive when slavery was in vogue, I feel absolutely zero responsibility for it. Understand history, yes...but don't bother trying to relive it. The only thing we can do is move forward, and so-called Affirmative Action policies don't allow that to happen.

You continue to deny the reality around you, and then blame everyone else for not agreeing with you. You obviously don't want to confront your own feelings using the immature self-defense mechanism of blaming me for the exact thing you are doing. You insist on being correct bcause you seem to thiink your thoughts on this subject are perfect! What folks like you fail to realise is that we are always moving on from one day to the next. Then you blame me for living in the past when my argument is current -- how to deal with your humanity today. You refuse to understand -- more foolishness on your part. Your mind is very strictly closed to new ideas and understanding of yourself. That is your problem, not anybody else's.

Wow...I have really tee'd you off haven't I? I can just picture you in your basement stewing in your boxer shorts...as you blame the world for your misfortune.
The funny thing is, you call me foolish (which is apparently the best you can do) and conservative, when in reality it isn't I that has suggested that we continue to live in the past, it isn't I that has implied that the only way black folks can compete is if they are given special favors, it isn't I that has suggested that we stick with the status quo.
In any case, this is my last comment on this issue. It is obvious that any rational discussion is impossible since your only response is to call me names. You are welcome to have the last word if you like.

I do love to have the last word. The fact is, historical racism is relevant because modern racism exists. Affirmative action laws and anti-discrimination laws exist not to correct past wrongs, but to ensure they aren't repeated in the future.

Seems you're the one pissed off, now your really dreaming... the sun is shining, life is pleasant and your way out of whack. No rational discussion with you is correct. You don't really seem to like yourself... calling other people names and then asking them to call you worse names...

Oh no Jacob - you're fine. I meant I wouldn't respond to DAG001 anymore unless he calms down. You didn't resort to name calling as your only recourse. I can see we can probably debate the issue without you pulling your hair out!
"Affirmative action laws and anti-discrimination laws exist not to correct past wrongs, but to ensure they aren't repeated in the future."
These are two different types of laws. Anti-discrimination laws - as long as they provide everyone regardless of race/gender/etc with identical and equal protections are a wholly different beast then affirmative action laws. In fact, the two diametrically opposed to one another since affirmative action laws - if they weight race/gender/etc in hiring decisions - are fundamentally discriminatory and therefore antithetical to anti-discrimination laws.
You can't have it both ways, otherwise - like it or not - you are punishing people today for past sins of bygone generations and you are creating an environment of hostility since people on the loosing end of the law will feel (rightfully) slighted.
I am generally in favor of laws against ANY discrimination: whether anti-white, anti-black, or anti-purple. That said, I do believe that people also have freedom of association and therefore any laws that are passed need to take this into account.
Better then laws though is education and evidence-based reasoning. Racism will pass as time goes on. But laws won't make it go away...convincing people en masse that racism - any racism - is bad will. Having elected a black president will. And so on. We don't need the power of the State to do that...we need the power of the people. That is why giving special racially motivated benefits - even if it makes one feel better - is fundamentally flawed: it does nothing to convince people en masse that racism is wrong...it does just the opposite.

'Racism will pass as time goes on. But laws won't make it go away...convincing people en masse that racism - any racism - is bad will.'

If that were true, there wouldn't have been a need for the Civil Rights Act in the first place. The facts point to a continuing structure of institutional racism - see the much higher incarceration rates amongst minorities, as well as much more stringent sentencing compared to whites. Not to mention the voter-ID laws, which affect minorities much more than whites. When you work six days a week for forty+ hours at minimum or near-minimum wage, and a family to support (or even yourself), time becomes much more valuable. Yes, if they really wanted to vote, they could prioritise their time. However, in a nation with a tragically low participation and turn-out rate already, it makes no sense (bar discrimination) to provide even less incentive to participate, especially for those who have been oppressed.

Time will eventually reduce racism to the realm of conspiracy nutbag, but racism is still prevalent in our society now, and likely will be for a while. Since that racism is institutionally designed, affirmative action is needed to ensure everyone, not just the vast majority, are given a fair shake. Yes, you aren't responsible for what your ancestors may or may not have done. However, since you enjoy the benefits of a society they designed, you bear responsibility for ensuring that that society is progressing towards greater equality. Think of it as collective responsibility: when an un-insured person gets into a horrific car accident, your taxes effectively subsidize his treatment, because we as a society believe that people shouldn't be left to die if the resources are there to save them. Affirmative action exists on the same principle - discrimination still exists, so we as a society decided the most effective way to far to combat it, is to ensure that at least some minorities will be able to participate, even if they may be slightly-less skilled than a comparable majority candidate.

Agree, wholeheartedly. Another voting rights issue prevalent in the south is denying certain convicts the rigth to vote. Example is Fla -- the infamous Bush victory in the state by the certified handful of votes. This in a state where over 600,000 residents were denied the right to vote due a criminal conviction -- many times this was decades prior...No, the white power structures in the South have not changed enough!

"Should a change be found discriminatory, in practice that will mean an election, perhaps even two or three, will have been stolen from them."
.
It would mean an election could have been stolen, depending on voting margins.
.
Anyway: Stolen from "them." Hmm. Ironically, this law perpetuates antiquated mindsets.

When the "Silent Generation" has been shuffled off, each to his own afterlife, then maybe we can consider trusting the South. Certainly, it is doubtful that the problem will be gone until the last of those old enough to vote in 1964 are gone, too.

That's like saying the PATRIOT Act shouldn't be criticized because it was reauthorized in 2011 by Obama no less. Leaving aside that weak argument, the VRA was reauthorized because it's popular and it's popular because (I'm guessing here) most Americans think it gave black people the right to vote and repeal means stripping them of that right. Leaving aside the cynical politics, I live in NYC where my district is subject to pre-clearance. Meanwhile Jacksonville, FL is not. Having said that, it's not that big a deal. Without Section 5, you'd just have Section 2 lawsuits. Elections won't necessarily be stolen in the meantime as you can get a temporary injunction.

A couple more points. Changes are pre-cleared in 99.9% of cases. That is not an exaggeration, but the actual number in the congressional report. Of course, it could be that the regulation is deterring violations.

Section 5 requires gerrymandering to create safe districts. I personally don't have a problem gerrymandering but I know most people disagree with me. You cannot get rid of gerrymandering without repealing Section 5.

There are many ways to skin a cat - I wouldn't be surprised about all sorts of games around registering to vote, accessibility to voting information and polling stations, etc.

And it will be interesting how things unfold when more documentation is required to vote. Now I have always had to show photo identification, as well as confirm my residency details, so I am used to such procedures.

However, how such practices are implemented or purposely skewed coudl turn out to be signficant, or leave room for abuses. There is the allegation about some state in the south saying a student ID is not good, but a hunting or gun license is fine.

Sounds bad, but in some places getting a gun license at least requires some effort, versus getting a card after matriculating at a collage.

If true though, such an anecdote shows how unintentionally or intentionally changes in voting rules and regulations can impacting voting patterns.

Otherwise,, the biggest conspiracy to retard the mechanics of elections is gerrymandering. From the sound of things, doesn't look like this court will be receptive to any lawsuits against such practices though.

J.F., did you actually bother to read the Congressional committee reports you link to, or is it simply easier to assume that rampant discrimination still exists, otherwise why would Congress reauthorize the VRA?

I will posit that Congress reauthorized the VRA DISPITE evidence that it is largly an unneeded relic of the past. They reauthorized it because no Congressman in his or her right mind wants to go down in history as having "voted against civil rights" in any way shape or form.

These are direct quotes from the committee report:

"Due to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, minorities in covered jurisdictions have made great strides over time. Indeed, presently in seven of the covered States, African-Americans are registered at a rate higher than the national average. Moreover, in California, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas, black registration and turnout in the 2004 election (the most recent Presidential election) was higher than that for whites. In Louisiana and South Carolina, African-American registration was 4 percentage points lower than that for whites--a rate identical to the national average. Virginia, however, remains an outlier: in the 2004 election, black registration was 7 percentage points lower than the national average, black registration was 11 percentage points lower than white registration, and black turnout was 13 percentage points lower than white turnout. There is some reason to believe that without the Voting Rights Act's deterrent effect on potential misconduct, these rates might be considerably worse.

In the 2004 election, nationwide, Latinos registered and turned out at rates significantly lower than white voters in the 2004 election--roughly 30 percentage points lower. In Texas and California, the gap was slightly smaller--26 percentage points in each State."

Thus, compared to the national averages (which, needles to say, includes a lot of supposedly "liberal" states that are not subjected to the VRA), the VRA-covered states either met or bettered the national averages in minority participation.

Likewise, the committee report goes on to note in regards to the numbers of minority elected officials:

"According to data made available to the Senate, today there are more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of the United States Congress, the largest number ever. Id. at 2. ACLU, Promises to Keep: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 (March 2006). `The Act has also opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials who have been elected and appointed nationwide,' including 263 at the state or federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. Id. Indeed in Georgia, minorities are elected at rates proportionate to or higher than their numbers. While Georgia's voting age population is 27.2% African-American, 30.7% of its delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives and 26.5% of the officials elected statewide are African-American. Black candidates in Mississippi have achieved similar success. The State's voting age population is 34.1% African-American, and 29.5% of its representatives in the State House and 25% of its delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives are African-American."

Thus, elected officials who are minorities are at their highest level ever, and in fact under the VRA-covered states their participation rate is higher than their relative population rate.

I will follow up by pointing out that the committee also looked "first hand accounts of discrimination". However, two of the anectdotal examples it gives date from 1991 and 1992 in Mississippi (a full 15 years earlier). It should also be noted that the Committee itself only called 46 witnesses, not all of whom were giving anectdotal accounts of discrimination. The committee report itself noted that "While we take no position on the existence of discrimination alleged in the accounts in the record, at face value the anecdotes submitted implicate only a fraction of the total number of covered political subdivisions." So, in summary, the Congressional report indicates a clear statistical decline in discrimination, with a few dozen witnesses telling war-stories about how they experienced discrimination at some point in the distant past in a tiny handful of jurisdictions.

The Committee report's conclusion is particularly telling:

"We decided to support the extension of the expiring changes, even though it would have been preferable and even constitutionally advisable for us to review the application of the Act's pre-clearance and other provisions. Unfortunately, the Act's language was a foregone conclusion, and we were unable to have the kind of debate and discussion and perhaps amendment process that might have been helpful to protect the act against future legal challenges. We wish we would have had the opportunity to improve the Act--because we are confident that with a little work, we could have done just that.

We cannot help but fear that the driving force behind this rushed reauthorization process was the reality that the Voting Rights Act has evolved into a tool for political and racial gerrymandering. We believe that is unfortunate and that political re-districting should be driven by objective parameters and should not use race to further the objectives of political parties."

Lex, did you actually bother to read the post you pretend to reply to, or was it easier to assume this is all some liberal conspiracy?

The post says reauthorization was based upon "substantial evidence of contemporary voting discrimination." Please let me know if that wasn't perfectly clear.

Now if you want to question the preclearance clause, I think you could make a case. But the election of black individuals in no way suggests that efforts to disenfranchise voters do not continue today. Alabama could elect a black person to every single office in the next election, and still pass unduly restrictive voting laws the very next day. There is no link, so your post makes no sense.

And I will follow up by saying that selective preclearance raises constitutional questions which many seem to acknowledge.

On the one hand, we force sex offenders to register and we restrict their proximity to schools. This infringes upon their privacy and their freedoms, presumably because

1 - psychology driven behavior is more likely to indicate a persistent personality trait, so

2 - the offender is more likely to offend again, so

3 - society is willing to trade the offender's rights for its own protection.

These are problematic to begin with, but to extend the logic to a precinct involves even greater contortions, including the fact that I don't think corporations or precincts are people. A precinct contains a group of people, and any prior misdeeds by certain individuals within it should have no bearing upon the stature of the current group of people before the law (of course WW thinks precincts might have distinct personalities, but there I think he is in the minority).

So I too am troubled by the requirement forcing electoral districts to preclear regulations based upon "prior behavior". But LexH ignores the "substantial evidence of contemporary voting discrimination" and suggests the whole law should be tossed. I think I agree with the committee's real findings that while the need for the law remains, the mechanism should be refined to ensure that it remains both effective and just.

What this could mean is that the DoJ must preclear ALL voting laws nationwide (fiscally unlikely) or it could retroactively invalidate any electoral result that is found to based upon substantial disenfrachisement. That would be a heavy hammer. Say a precinct is found to be in violation for the past XX years. All electoral results from that precinct in that period would be invalidated, and those votes would be redacted from the official count. If that changed the overall result of an election, any current officeholder would be subject to a snap reelection if his prior challenger chose to mount it. This could ensnare not only mayors and school board members, but state and federal congressmen and senators (the POTUS would be shielded by the electoral college).

The indignity, hassle and cost of such a thing would encourage all precincts (and all incumbents) to exercise significant restraint and oversight over voting laws. Hopefully, this would achieve the legislative intent of the VRA in a just and constitutional manner.

Typingmonkey,
Do you read what others post, or do you just reflexively rush to the defense of incorrect bloggers?

You state: "The post says reauthorization was based upon 'substantial evidence of contemporary voting discrimination.' Please let me know if that wasn't perfectly clear."

That was perfectly clear. It is also perfectly wrong, as I point out in my post. There was no "substantial evidence of contemporary voting discrimination", as the Committee Report plainly shows. Read the Committee report yourself and see.

As far as giving me permission to question the preclearance clause, that WAS the whole point of the original post and my comment. The VRA is not being repealed, and is going never going away. The only thing that is subject to sunsetting are the preclearance procedures, and that is the only thing that was being reauthorized.

As far as your claim that my post makes no sense, it probably makes no sense to those who cannot read it properly or are ignorant of what is actually in the law and in the Committee report. However, for those that bother to actually educate themselves, my posts should be pretty clear: the VRA provisions at issue do not need to be reauthorized, because there is NO contemporary statistical evidence of discrimination in those covered jurisdictions. A handful of out-of-date anecdotal war stories from a couple of dozen witnesses does not a national crisis make.

The federal district court said there was 'substantial evidence of contemporary voting discrimination.' And the DC Circuit agreed!

Why would they say that? Maybe because "Between 1982 and 2006 the Justice Department objected to over 1,000 proposed voting changes."

You seem to insist on erroneously and repeatedly concluding that the election of a black person proves the absence of voting discrimination. Once again, it does not. You could have every black person in America registered, have every one of them vote, and have every black candidate win office. Does that prove there is no discrimination? No! Every single one of them could have been harassed when they tried to register. Every single one of them could have been harassed when they tried to vote. And every one of those votes could have been counted under hostile conditions. That is discrimination. That is wrong. And election results have absolutely nothing to do with it. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

The VRA is not there to get minorities into office. It is there to preserve the integrity of our electoral process. So just because you see minorities in office doesn't mean there aren't continuing efforts to undermine the integrity of our electoral process. Get it?

I think the anectdotal testimony also confuses you. You seem to think that the anectdotes constitute the totality of evidence of voting discrimination. They do not. Anectdotal testimony is taken to lend narrative substance to statistics. You are told there were 1000 reports of discrimination, but as an individual you can't really comprehend their overall significance. But as a policymaker, you need to so that you may calibrate your response. Do you have the time and ability to call 1000 witnesses? No. So you call three to testify in person, and you say, "My god, there were 1000 such reports? And how many situations went unreported?"

Finally, let me repeat that the Department of Justice found over 1000 objectionable electoral shenanigans from 1982 to 2006. Whose Justice Departments? Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. There is something rotten in Denmark. Even the Danes say so.